Re: Simple Question

[becky.rickly@umich.edu (Becky Rickly)]

I'll take Sara's definition a step further--or, perhaps, a step back.  I
remember once hearing that theory was simply extended anecdote.  So not
only does it provide the lens by which to view observation/experience, I
think observation/experience *creates* the lens.  In that sense, then, it
is tactile as well.  Don't know about the other senses....

--Becky

>Hi, CH. In one of the non-writing center parts of my life, I'm a
>lexicographer, and in fact I'm currently writing a dictionary and teaching
>a course in lexicography.  One thing about definitions--they're extracted
>and abstracted from discourse--if they're not "lifted" from other
>dictionaries ;)  So I guess your question is about abstracting the various
>senses of _theory_ from all that discourse.  Here's a rough shot at
>my own
>sense:
>
>A cognitive lens through which data collected through observation are
>percievved.
>
>
>Howard Tinberg (sp?) added that he thought of a theory as a tool used to
>manipulate thought (or similar--I've deleted the original posts).  I'd say
>a lens *is* a tool, but yes, a theory is not just used to perceive, it can
>be used to operate on the results of perception.
>
>What about the other senses.  _Theory_ is, like most interesting words,
>polysemous.
>
>Sara Kimball
>
>
>On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, CH wrote:
>
>> Lady and Lord Centaurs who engaged in the exchanges on theory,
>> heuristics and tagmemics:
>>
>> Now that all of the sound and fury of discussion has ceased,
>> lend me your ears....well not literally; I have two rather handsome
>> ones.  I prefer you attend me as young Pip asked Magwich to do as Magwich
>> was shaking the livin' daylights out of him. ...or was that some other
>> Dickens' character hiding in the marsh that night, and did I spell
>> Magwich correctly?....Before you ponder all of this, I ask for your
>> attention to another small detail.
>>
>> Several days ago, I posed a simple question without fanfare, without
>> an attention grabbing introduction, without any humour....Just a simple
>> question to those of you engaged in the discussion of theory, practice,
>> and tagmemics. Alas, no one responded.  I thought of engaging in a bit
>> of weeping and gnashing of teeth, but I need these old teeth.  So, I
>> sipped a bit of pure malt and threw darts at the dart board.
>>
>> I asked that one or all of you engaged in the discussions to define
>> your use of the word "theory."  As I read the discussion, I discovered
>> that perhaps the term was being used in a variety of ways.  I was sincere
>> in my question. I wanted to know how *you* define "theory."  Can any
>> or all of you who participated in the discussion write a simple, or even a
>> complex, definition of "theory" as you are using the term?  (Those who
>> did not participate in the discussion are not invited to define unless
>> you would like to define the word as you perceived it being used. This
>> might be interesting.)
>>
>> So, how is the word "theory" used in these discussions?
>>
>> It is a premise offered to be proven or disproven?
>> Is it something advocated or practiced?
>> Is it a principle (or principles) accepted as a way to
>>   explain a particular phenomenon?
>> Is is merely your hypothesis created for the sake of argument?
>> Is it an investigation of facts and their relationship to one another?
>>
>> Is my request that you who engaged in this lofty discussion
>> define "theory" too simple to be answered?  Or is it that none of you
>> know how to define the term?
>>